MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about session vs permanent login, browser login flow, and the no-args link generation. It does not over-explain, but the key behavioral aspects are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense run-on sentence with embedded options and instructions. It is informative but could be better structured with clearer separation of the two login methods. It is not fully concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and both auth modes. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by 'get the link' and the explicit token usage. Minor absence of response details, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter: token is a JWT, used for session-only login, and the tool can be called with no args to get the link. This is more than sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates an authentication action ('log in', 'access token', 'Authorize'), and the name 'authenticate' matches. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives two concrete usage paths: permanent via config header or session-only via token/no-args. It states which is 'best' and what each call does. It does not mention when to use other tools, but the usage guidance for this tool is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts, etc.) that overlap with report_bug, connect, and toolkit_info, making it unclear which tool to choose for a given task. However, mpt_consultar is clearly distinct, and the core tools are mostly separable.
Tool names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), Portuguese verbs (mpt_consultar), and snake_case verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). There is no consistent naming convention, which reduces predictability.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform server covering authentication, connection status, marketplace access, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. The broad scope justifies the number, though one tool (marketplace) carries a disproportionate amount of functionality.
The platform lifecycle is well-covered: authentication, connection checks, marketplace exploration/invocation/installation, billing, bug reporting, and version/info. The mpt_consultar tool addresses the specific MPT domain query. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated credential management beyond authenticate, but core workflows are not dead-ended.